The Final PhOEnix Confession

The Final PhOEnix Confession of

“E  OxOnforde”

And the “Burning” Of All Previous Existences

In His Last Letter To King James (1604)

    © Elwood Le Roy Miller, March, 22, 2016

Introduction: “What’s In A Name. . A rOsE by any OthEr”

There is hardly anything more personal than one’s personal name and signature. It is amazing, really—one’s birth name in the written word: a thing “of” oneself, having an existence “outside” of oneself.  Something that can be seen, apart from oneself and yet it is a designation of one’s self—so far as possible, in the very letters and the appearance of them in the “objective” world.

In some quarters, law for example, there are forensic specialists in identifying how the manner in which a person writes can tell us a great deal about their expression of themselves, their personality, moods, etc. We here have no theories on the matter, for this subject, save what one can see with their own eyes, immediately. The actual signature of Lord Oxford (with attempted simulation above) is posted for the reader to see.

We deal here only with documenting the matter of Lord Oxford’s last known signature. It is in a letter to the new King of England, James the First, and Lord Oxford was only a few months before death. The lettr is dated Jan. 30, 1604. But, let us begin by correcting the record.

What Signatures Did Lord Oxford Really Use?

Setting the Record Straight

Hank Whittemore, I read at his website, referred to William Plumber Fowler’s collection of Lord Oxford’s personal letters as:  “. . . one of the great Oxfordian works, with 872 pages showing how Edward de Vere’s letters are filled with Shakespearean language and unique to Shakespearean forms of expression.”

Regardless of opinions of Fowler’s work, used by this writer many times over the years, Whittemore made a faux pas, however, when he stated that the signature which Lord Oxford used (posted above as his example) at his FB site was the:

“same crown-shaped signature on letters to William and Robert Cecil for more than three decades until the death of Elizabeth l in 1603, after which he reverted to a different form of signature.”

These simple words are inaccurate and misrepresent and confuse many matters, in only a few words.

                                               XXX

Actually, the signature above “O x e” (as three separate letters, followed by “Ford” in script) gives a much truer prototypical image of the signature used by Lord Oxeford in the very letters mentioned by Whittemore above.

With use of my own copy of Fowler, I was able to determine some of the facts of record in the matter. Twenty-seven of the 35 letters available to examine, i.e., Fowler/Ward, etc. show most of the letters to appear as is posted here, immediately above—not as shown by Hank’s example of an uncharacteristic script signature. The matter is very important.

The Last Two Known Letter’s by Lord Oxford Contain His OE Cipher Code

Whittemore, as above, stated that Lord Oxford in his last two letters “reverted” to “a different form of signature.” That “different form” was a form never seen before! Fowler states:

“the signature, “E. Oxenforde,” is underscored with the same looped trefoil design as in his immediately preceding letter of May 7, 1603. These last two underscorings differ radically from the spear-like line with the seven cross marks which underscore his signatures in all earlier letters subsequent to his 1563 French one. These last two signatures lack also the wavy line topped by four dots occurring above his prior signatures. This abrupt signature chance, following his letter of April, 1603 may have some significance connected with his turning attention to the new monarch King James. . .” (p. 803, Fowler)

The last two known letters being, May 7, 1603 and June 19, 1603) and it was uniquely sent as a message for the eyes of Robert Cecil and King James—to remind them without saying a word about it, that to his credit, as they know, he is also—OE, i.e., “Shakespeare,” “Ignoto,” and known as Edward de Vere, cited from Ward, orig. source of Fowler:

“E. OXENFORDE.”        (May, 1601,Ward-Hatfield, MSS, 99, 161) 

“E. OXENFORDE.”    (June, 1603, Ward- Hatfield, MSS, 100, 108)

The above is how Fowler gives it. Fowler’s authority for his letters is credited to Ward, whom I also have. In Ward, the quoted source of Fowler, shows that both signatures look the same, i.e., capitalized. I’ve provided as given in Ward, p. 343,4.

Caveat:  This writer has not seen the original letters described above, and relies solely upon the representations of cited sources. Only 12 of the 37 signatures uses the style of Whittemore’s example, and (of those seen by me on the internet and my library), a number are not all in script—as Whittemore’s example also indicates.  It is fair to say, the opposite of Whittemore’s description is far closer to the truth—i.e., it is an “unusual” autograph he has depicted.

A Third Letter

“E OXONforde”   [=44] Essex Record Office MS d/DMhCI: 

Oxford to King James January 30, 1604]  

I have located another letter, from Jan 30, 1604, in a letter directly to King James. Indeed, the signature there is radically different, indeed (even more so then the other two which I’ve not seen?). It, too is without all the paraphernalia described above, just, as with the other two, with a trefoil (more of a scribble beneath, beginning the the last letter, also an “e” at the end of “E OXONforde” – as best I can do—with no period (apparently) after the “E” and a little larger than the “O”, as are the other letters, too, with only the top of the “f” and “d” being of the same height as the solo “E”. (see Shakesperare-Oxford Society website).

It is, as suspected, having just got the image this minute, extraordinary. More so by far than anyone has reported. There is no “O” in “OXEFORD” “OXENFORD” OR “OXFORD” – never has been and there is no example of it that this writer knows of.

We have the unique incidence of LO’s signature at the age of 13 where he spells, in a letter written in French, “Oxinford.” But, difference between an “in” and an “en” is slight at best. Heere we deal with an “O” instead of an “E”.

What in the world is an “O” doing in place of an “E” or an “e”? Or an “x” (as he almost habitually used in the decades preceding, i.e., “Oxeford”). What is “Oxon”?—for one thing “Oxon” is an abbreviation, a reference to the country of “Oxfordshire” in England. This is derived from the Latin for “Oxford” which is “oxonia”  

Be it noted that “Oxford” in Greek is  Οξφόρδη and is sounded with a “dee” sounding very much as in English, “Oxfordee.” So the “image” of the word is OE and the pronunciation then begins with “O” sound and ends with “E” sound.  Moreover, in the letter, LO uses the “e” at the end of the signature, in such a way orthographically as to give it prominence, so the word begins in a long “O” sound and ends in an “E” sound!

OXFORD, SOUNDED “OXFORDE”

The word “Oxford” in Greek, sounds much as it does in English, except it has an “e” sounding, “Oxforde” that word, sounded as said, is spelled, in Greek:

Οξφόρδη = Oxforde – with final “e” sounded /first letter “OE” virtually, but, in script, E , with a descending, rather than ascending bottom tail. Nonetheless, the word itself has a “dee” ending sound vis a vis LO’s last 2 letters to Robert Cecil, his brother in law, as to the signatures!

Note: 4 times Only LO uses, in any of the 37 signatures (from 1563 to death) the initial “E.” before his last name, to indicate his name, “Edward.” The first was in 1563 when he was 13 years old, an “official” letter, his first and only preserved letter in French; and the last three in the last three letters of his life (1573 and 1602-1603).

From the first preserved letter, in French, we see that LO, whenever he spelled out his name, Edward, always uses a “stick” E, prominently enlarged, for the E and a simple circle, as is the O on “Oxeford”—that is to say, LO’s FIRST and most usual by far way he wrote his name is with large E large O—beyond ordinary proportions. He spelled his name for our “first” example as “Oxeford.” And—it would seem—as did his grandfather before him with the Oxe   (but he also used an “n”, for a fourth separate letter, with the second part of the name “ford” all in joined italic.

The first time Lord Oxford used his first name initial in a known signature, is in a signature he used for a publication he sponsored, and he used, for his publication of “Cardanus “ his signature “E. Oxenford.” . When Dainte Devises was published he was more “secretly identified” as “E.O.”  

A WELL-KEPT SECRET

“But his secret has been well kept. Indeed, so completely have the last fifteen years of his life been obscured that one is tempted to wonder whether this is due to chance, or whether it may not have been deliberately designed. . .

In ringing down the curtain on the Earl of Oxford’s life, perhaps it may be fitting to close with an epitaph, written by an anonymous contemporary, which is now preserved among the Harleian Manuscripts:

“Edward de Vere, only son of John, born the 12^th day of April, 1550, Earl of Oxenford, High Chamberlain, Lord Bolbee, Sandford, and Badlesmere, Steward of the forest in Essex, and of the Privy Council to the King’s Majesty that now is. Of whom I will only speak what all men’s voices confirm: he was a man in mind and body absolutely accomplished with honourable endowments.”  

                                              Ward, p. 348, “Conclusion”

[Of course, we need to see these documents, for not infrequently the transcription of the spelling of words is changed without informing the reader. Is the above an exact spelling reproduction of the original? I do not know.]

EO/OE’s LAST 15 YEARS

Indeed, Ward makes reference to Lord Oxford’s “secret” and that for the last 15 year of his life, his very life, is so obscured as to cause one to wonder. Was it by accident that it was so, or by “deliberate design.” This is true. And yet, of course, we owe it to Ward himself that so many letters were produced and researched—and all owe him a great debt of gratitude, to my mind. And all those letters, those letters from the last 15 (or even 20) years always had a Oxe ford signature, never with a beginning initial (except as noted above) “E”—and yet now, in last two letters, suddenly, we have, for the first time ever—in all 37 letters I checked—just the last two “E. Oxenforde” Let us pause a moment:

                                    LORD OXENFORDE

               REMINDS HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW WHO HE IS

It has been virtually 15 years since I last looked into Ward and I note in my copy, heavily underlined and with marginalia, as I studied it very closely, I see I have sectioned off comment beginning “King, I hear. . .I do well perceive how your Lordship doth travail for me in this cause of an especial grace and favour, notwithstanding. . .how much the expedition of this matter concerns me I leave to your wisdom that in your apprehension can read more than I have written. To conclude. . .”

And I note in red ink in the margin, after the pro forma close, “not heart—business.” But certainly I could feel it was heartfelt as to LO’s desire for the property—I well knew that, the formality of the closing, right before the unique signature, E. Oxenforde. The two letters with such unique signatures were in May and the last of all in June. Both related to business with King James and his petition for “getting his due.” And, I see it that Lord Oxford, by signing his letter such, reminded them that is E.O. or O.E., the PhOEnix!  Shakespeare, Ignoto, etc. They knew it, he is now reminding King James of it.

Update: Now that we have, in fact, another letter, this one to King James, and with a signature of E Oxonforde—unlike even the two other unique letters just submitted to the reader, from May 7, 1603 and June 9, 1603. The new one was in January 30, 1604! Lord Oxford would die before six months were out. King James, not only granted all he asked for, but also made him a member of his Privy Council, certainly a unique honor.

Are We Just Mind Reading/”Over-Relating”?

Obviously we have either another highly interesting coincidence or Lord Oxford is clearly saying that “I leave to your wisdom that in your apprehension you can read more than I have written. It is, in fact, an appeal for him to understand something more than he has written—no doubt, I suggest, in what he has written—Uniquely, signed, as never before to the eyes of Robert Cecil who had many letters from his brother-in-law—save in his last two letters, both of which were dedicated to making appeals to his “right” petition to King James—for what was due his family! And, I suggest, with the kicker that if that is not enough, remember, please who I am—the PhOEnix!

Elm

Phi (uppercase Φ, lowercase  or ; Ancient Greek: ϕεῖ, pheî, [pʰé͜e]; modern Greek: φι, fi, [fi]; English: /faɪ/^[1]) is the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet. In Ancient Greek, it represented an aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive ([pʰ]), which was the origin of its usual romanization as "ph". In modern Greek, it represents avoiceless labiodental fricative ([f]) and is correspondingly romanized as "f". Its origin is uncertain but it may be that phi originated as the letter qoppa and initially represented the sound /kʷʰ/ before shifting to Classical Greek [pʰ].^[2] In traditional Greek numerals, phi has a value of 500 (φʹ) or 500 000 (͵φ). The Cyrillic letter Ef (Ф, ф) descends from phi.

Phi is also used as a symbol for the golden ratio and on other occasions in math and science. This use is separately encoded as the Unicode glyph ϕ. The modern Greek pronunciation of the letter is sometimes encountered in English (as /fiː/) when the letter is being used in this sense.^[3]